Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > Delta
Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? >

Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

Notices

Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

Old 05-22-2012, 07:40 PM
  #100681  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
Default

Originally Posted by flyallnite View Post
The 76 vs 70 seat size is huge because what is actually out there is the 65 seat CRJ 700, which seats 65, the ERJ 170 which seats 69, the CRJ 900 which seats 76 and the ERJ 175 which also seats 76. The addition of more first class and coach seats make the larger 76 seat jet an order of magnitude more efficient than the so called 70 seat jet, neither of which actually seat 70 passengers. This product is a job killer for us and DL knows it. The 50 AND the 70 seat RJ's are inefficient, and the company wants to dump them. This is really the only chance we have of restructuring domestic feed in the long run. If we allow the company to outsource flying by giving them an efficient platform to do so, we have only ourselves to blame.
That's true, and if we keep the current contract for a few more years fighting it out for a 25% immediate raise, and still add the 717s and MD90s, we will get an extra 32 76 seaters to the max of 255, not 223 that is in the current TA. Those extra 76 seaters are nicer, and will eat away at even more of our premium routes. They will get them one way or the other, and may not pay us any raises in the meantime. All they have to do is add planes and keep us at our current payrates for a couple more years, and they are paid off.
Bill Lumberg is offline  
Old 05-22-2012, 07:41 PM
  #100682  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: 757/767
Posts: 192
Default

Originally Posted by flyallnite View Post
Thought about that too, but everything says that we will be capacity neutral going forward, and many of those 737-900's will replace the 757, 767, and A320's that are coming up on heavy checks. No mention has been made of future MD-88 retirements, but I could imagine that with more 717's and 76 seat RJ's, many of those could hit the desert too--- that last part is speculation though.
Capacity neutral only because of the plan to dump so many 50 seat CRJs.
Thrust Normal is offline  
Old 05-22-2012, 07:47 PM
  #100683  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Boomer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: blueJet
Posts: 4,498
Default

Originally Posted by flyallnite View Post
...The 50 AND the 70 seat RJ's are inefficient, and the company wants to dump them.
Then you have to ask why this TA specifically allows all 102 current 70-seaters to remain?
Boomer is offline  
Old 05-22-2012, 07:52 PM
  #100684  
Gets Weekends Off
 
flyallnite's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Stay THIRSTY, my friends!
Posts: 1,898
Default

Originally Posted by Boomer View Post
Then you have to ask why this TA specifically allows all 102 current 70-seaters to remain?

I suspect it's for future bargaining bait. The company is probably thinking two contracts ahead of us.
flyallnite is offline  
Old 05-22-2012, 08:01 PM
  #100685  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Ragtop Day's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Position: B737 FO
Posts: 165
Default

Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg View Post
Have you been on any of the older ASA or Comair 70 seaters? They are old and junky. I would think management would want to replace those too with newer 76 seaters and get them to the max of 255, which is 32 more than they could get with the TA. They could replace the 70 seaters with the money savings of NOT paying us our raises.

I like alot about the new section 1. The top end stuff seems pretty good, but we all know language is extremely important. A misplaced comma or a single wrong word could be trouble. I like the total airframe limit and block hour ratios. In fact I would be wholeheartedly praising this section if it wasn't for the increased number of 70+ seaters. Keep the limit at 255. As it stands the new limit will be somewhere around 325. Kind of feels like the new rest rules--the goal is to rest more, so they increase the max number of flight hours??? Better scope is not attained by increasing the number of large RJ's. They Try to address this with the ratios and airframe limit, but at the end of the day there are many more large RJ's. That just doesn't sit well wit me. Like I said before, in totality small jet scope in this TA may be viewed as a win or a loss, but personally I do not like having to trade for protections when we are making money and should be clawing our way out of a bankruptcy contract. There should not be any trading on these levels, only gains.
Ragtop Day is offline  
Old 05-22-2012, 08:04 PM
  #100686  
veut gagner à la loterie
 
forgot to bid's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Default

Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg View Post
That's true, and if we keep the current contract for a few more years fighting it out for a 25% immediate raise, and still add the 717s and MD90s, we will get an extra 32 76 seaters to the max of 255, not 223 that is in the current TA. Those extra 76 seaters are nicer, and will eat away at even more of our premium routes. They will get them one way or the other, and may not pay us any raises in the meantime. All they have to do is add planes and keep us at our current payrates for a couple more years, and they are paid off.
Worse case:
Current PWA: 255 76 seaters
vs
C2012 TA: 325 65-76 seaters which includes 223 76 seaters and 102 E170s/CRJ700s.
Or...
PWA now for 51+ seat jets: 19,380 seats
vs
C2012 TA now for 51+ seat jets: 23,658 seats
forgot to bid is offline  
Old 05-22-2012, 08:09 PM
  #100687  
veut gagner à la loterie
 
forgot to bid's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Default

Originally Posted by flyallnite View Post
I suspect it's for future bargaining bait. The company is probably thinking two contracts ahead of us.
Good point. Just like we need to give up scope to bail the company out on the 300+ CRJ-200s it ordered in C2016 we will need to bail the company out again on the 102 CRJ-700s/E170s by converting all of those to 76 seaters and who in the heck knows if 325 would remain the cap?

At this point, why would it?
forgot to bid is offline  
Old 05-22-2012, 08:10 PM
  #100688  
West Side
 
Drone's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: 320A
Posts: 42
Default

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler View Post
Lots of great analysis here folks and I really appreciate it. Special shout out to tsquare who has had some great thoughts on this. I know, I know, hell just froze over.

I've been hesitant to post this because I didn’t want to jinx what I was really hoping would happen. But now what I was really hoping for has happened so here goes:

Negotiations that lead to an actual agreement (tentative or not) unmasks both sides’ real agendas. That is one of the vulnerabilities that both sides understand going in. Management has completely unmasked themselves by agreeing to this TA, and as such has provided us with tremendous leverage going forward. It is quite clear now that the “opportunity” that management sees is not a new aircraft order (that will be done based on the economics of the hull in question). It is also not a merger or asset acquisition, again because nothing in our current contract would prevent that. The “opportunity” that management is so desperate to grab ASAP is the removal of our current contract. And for once, the RLA and the NMB will work hugely to our advantage if we vote this TA down. Allow me to explain:

Our current contract has a hard cap of 255 over 50 seat RJ’s. Management says they can only get rid of those leases by getting more 76 seat RJ’s. This is of course wrong, because they can also be rid by bankruptcy…which will happen to the RJ airlines who continue to fly these 50 seaters. Bankruptcy will only be prevented if we increase our hard cap of 255 over 50 seat RJ’s. If we keep our current contract, the hard cap of 255 remains and RJ airlines go bankrupt allowing Delta to get out of the 50 seat leases that they were dumb enough to sign. What happens to that lift then? Delta will be forced to put over 50 seat RJ’s on those routes they still want flown. But what will replace those over 50 seat RJ’s? – mainline aircraft IF we keep our 255 hard cap. If we sign off on this new TA, there will be no incentive whatsoever by management to use mainline aircraft.

Our current contract allows for a much higher portion of profit sharing by pilots. Our very meager pay increases are actually being “funded” (the MEC’s words not mine) by the reduction in our profit sharing. By keeping our current contract, we will be very close to a wash on pay given the enormous profits that are in Delta’s future.

Keeping our current contract forces outsourcing to be reduced due to the reality of 50 seat RJ’s vanishing and our hard cap of 255 remaining. Keeping our current contract allows us to gain more in pay (my bet) through profit sharing. Keeping our current contract does not insert into our scope language the ridiculous new provision of the company being excused for damn near everything for things that are “out of their control”. We are the ones that need to drag our feet until management screams for relief…and they will scream for relief. Once they tire of sending out HUGE checks for profit sharing (that are indexed for inflation where multi-year pay raises are not), and paying for leases of parked 50 seat RJ’s, they will come begging. That’s when we can sit down and bargain.

Absolutely none of this is possible if we vote this TA in.

Carl
Carl and all standard APC players

Mostly a lurker here for the last 2 years. I normally do not post as my thoughts to words are not up to my speaking skills; however, this post by Carl is my favorite view yet.

Listening is 90 percent of communication and I believe trying to understand motives partly satisfies this listening component.

I have not decided on how I will vote, but this thought by Carl will be on my conciseness when I do. I am not opposed to helping mgt with their goals as I truly believe they are more aligned with mine than not, but a TA should provide protections for us Pilots when those goals conflict.

I will continue to read APC, DALPA forum, and attend roadshows so I can make an informed vote. I hope some of you will be in NRT during June so I can continue to Listen as you are all a lot more able to decipher TA language than me. My one post per year quota is complete

Drone
Drone is offline  
Old 05-22-2012, 08:11 PM
  #100689  
veut gagner à la loterie
 
forgot to bid's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Default

Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg View Post
That's true, and if we keep the current contract for a few more years fighting it out for a 25% immediate raise, and still add the 717s and MD90s, we will get an extra 32 76 seaters to the max of 255, not 223 that is in the current TA. Those extra 76 seaters are nicer, and will eat away at even more of our premium routes. They will get them one way or the other, and may not pay us any raises in the meantime. All they have to do is add planes and keep us at our current payrates for a couple more years, and they are paid off.
One other thing Bill, and I think we've been on the same page with this before, but saying no to this TA because we want a bigger raise should have nothing to do with saying no to this TA because of the erosion on large RJ scope.

I'll vote no because of section 1, not because of section 3 and even if section 3 was upped I'd still vote no if section 1 didn't change because scope is not for sale.
forgot to bid is offline  
Old 05-22-2012, 08:12 PM
  #100690  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,911
Default

Originally Posted by forgot to bid View Post
Worse case:
Current PWA: 255 76 seaters
vs
C2012 TA: 325 65-76 seaters which includes 223 76 seaters and 102 E170s/CRJ700s.
Or...
PWA now for 51+ seat jets: 19,380 seats
vs
C2012 TA now for 51+ seat jets: 23,658 seats
I don't get it FTB. Your numbers seem to point to a concessionary scope section. DALPA is telling me how our scope will be industry leading. What am I missing?
hockeypilot44 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
On Autopilot
Regional
22594
11-05-2021 07:03 AM
AeroCrewSolut
Delta
153
08-14-2018 12:18 PM
Bill Lumberg
Major
71
06-13-2012 08:36 AM
Quagmire
Major
253
04-16-2011 06:19 AM
JiffyLube
Major
12
03-07-2008 04:27 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices